So catches don't always win matches. England caught brilliantly. They did everything else insipidly - and that's being generous.
English defeats in New Zealand are not that common. They tend to happen on pitches that have given plenty of help to the seamers: Wellington in 1978, Christchurch in 1984, Auckland in 2002. On all those occasions it was damp, the ball jagged around devilishly. The clatter of wickets was explicable. In the first two Sir Richard Hadlee was in his pomp.
But here England were overwhelmed on a dry pitch under bright sunshine, the sort of circumstances that batsmen love. Defeats don't come much more humiliating than this.
We could dwell on minutiae. But the general observation is the most telling. New Zealand were brimful of energy and ambition throughout. England weren't. Catching aside they played without purpose or passion.
Michael Vaughan's sides have seldom been so passive, so easily dominated, so pathetically resigned to their fate. Look at the bowling of England's right-handers. On the first day the charitable view was that Matthew Hoggard and Steve Harmison reduced their pace because they recognised a sluggish pitch, upon which bending the back was a pointless exercise. They were too canny to waste too much energy.
The flaw in that thesis was soon demonstrated by the Kiwi opening bowlers. Chris Martin and Kyle Mills may be an unheralded pair, yet they outbowled their opponents by a frightening margin. In England's first innings their returns were modest but the contrast was obvious. In they second they reaped their harvest on a surface that was supposed to suit the spinners.
Likewise the English batsmen soon convinced themselves that it was impossible to play a stroke on this pitch. This line-up was once regarded as aggressive in the modern mould. Occasionally such tigerish aggression might backfire. That happens. But now they bat like poodles. Even Kevin Pietersen has been reluctant to seize the initiative.
So what can England do for the Wellington Test? James Whitaker, one of the new selectors, flies home on Monday. When he was captain of a very successful Leicestershire side, the hallmark of his team and his leadership was energy. He is too distant to wave any magic wand, but it is energy, rather than any technical overhauls, that this side requires.
How to infuse that? The obvious way is fresh personnel and it would be amazing if England started the second Test with the same side. Even so sweeping changes are unlikely. Steve Harmison is most vulnerable after contributing one wicket and one run in Hamilton. Even the steadfast Hoggard will be looking over his shoulder. Stuart Broad and James Anderson will be seeking to impress in the nets. The loquacious Graeme Swann may extol the virtues of playing two spinners with minimal success.
The batting? It will probably be "same line-up, different performance, please". Owais Shah is the only fresh option but logic would be the loser if he replaced Andrew Strauss, who has only just returned to the fold.
Another note to Kiwi bloggers, who sense all this is too anglocentric. Good news requires little space. Daniel Vettori has been superb, positive, pragmatic, a man in charge of a buzzing, proud team. Stephen Fleming lets him get on with it and like all the successful New Zealand sides of the past, they are maximising their potential. England appear to be squandering theirs and reputations are starting to crumble far more swiftly than a blameless track in Hamilton. .
